Unlike several of his Republican colleagues,
Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) never supported a health care plan with an individual
mandate, so his stated view that the requirement is unconstitutional isn't
necessarily hypocritical. It is, however, deeply confused. Speaking on the
Senate floor yesterday afternoon, Vitter argued that mandated ownership of
health insurance is "unprecedented and for that reason it is unconstitutional."

VITTER: So this absolute mandate
that every man, woman, and child in the United States go out and purchase
health insurance, purchase a product in the private marketplace, is unprecedented and for that reason it is
unconstitutional. And it's an unprecedented expansion of the power and role
and authority of the federal government.

Watch:

Of course, by Vitter's reasoning, every landmark bill ever
passed should have been constitutionally prohibited by virtue of the fact that
it hadn't passed before. Unfortunately, Judge Roger Vinson's logic wasn't much
better in his decision striking down the Affordable Care Act earlier this week.
As we previously documented, legal scholars and policy experts from across the
political spectrum have rejected
Vinson's error-filled
opinion.

Read more about Judge Vinson's decision and the
constitutionality of health care reform HERE.